|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chuck
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 10:47 pm: |       |
In my opinion, Roslyn is the best suspect. Indeed there were occult symbols cut onto Catherine Eddowes' cheeks (^^) and an occult symbol was created on a map for the first four victims.
-Chuck- |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 9:50 pm: | |
Chuck,
Both alleged occult symbols are nothing but con games.
Saddam |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 6:53 am: | |
hi,
how is that an occult symbol please explain for a poor sap!
all the best
jp |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 9:22 pm: | |
Dear Everyone,
There are many problems with the theory that the victims were laid out according to a set plan.
First of all the actual difficulties in doing that are enormous. Try it for yourself. You always hit the problem of part of you pattern ending up in a river or in the middle of a solid block of concrete.
If a murderer wanted to place victims to a set pattern there is a much simpler way. Take five victims, kill them, load them into a cart and take them to a deserted field and lay the bodies out according to any pattern you want. In symbology it is the shape not the size of the symbol that is important.
With the Ripper murders however there is an insurmountable hurdle to overcome. Which bodies are part of the series? Do you count Tabram, Nicholls, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly? Or do you leave Tabram out? What about Stride? There is an awful lot of evidence to show that she wasn't a Ripper victim. What does that do to your pattern?
The victims were killed by some unknown and the bodies left where they fell. Its funny how often people are not willing to accept the simple plain unvarnished truth. I remeber the fuss about Hanratty. He was innocent there was a conspiracy. DNA says no. Murrell was killed by the Secret Services and here's a book to prove it. Yet I hear tonight the police have just arrested a man for it.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 10:22 pm: | |
Chuck,
Two sets of occult symbols are alleged to appear in the case evidence:
1. The murder scenes are alleged to form a symbol when laid on a map called vesica pisces, or the fish that was the first symbol of the Christian faith, in representation of Christ's feeding of the five thousand. This in turn is linked to "magikal" practices of D'Onston. However, there aren't nearly enough dots to connect to ascertain if the fish story is necessarily true. I can connect the dots of the murder scenes to get a fish, its true, but in other ways I can also get a butterfly, a man wearing a German army helmet, a cigar, or a fern. Surely seeing a vesica pisces on the map is a matter of wanting to see it there, or being led to see it there.
2. Figures carved into Catherine Eddowes' face are alleged to be occult symbols. Well, they might be, or they might not be. There are no symbols connected to the Mitre Square crime scene that are unmistakeable occult symbols. An unmistakeable occult symbol would require a context within which the symbols would necessarily be interpreted as occult in nature. This might involve the presence of so many symbols found in occult books that there would be no question whatever of their occult nature in the context of the crime scene. Or perhaps the presence of a dead black cat, or a book on the occult at the crime scene. But none of these things are present at the Mitre Square scene. All we have are a small number of oddly-made cuts on the face, and there is no more evidence present to interpret them as occult in nature than there is to interpret them as fourteenth century Bulgarian poetry.
Now if you WANT to believe that D'Onston did the crimes because he was known to have an interest in the occult, then go ahead. But, considering the evidence, do you really want to? Remember, the notion that (the symbols are occult) is co-dependent on the notion that (D'Onston did the crimes because he practiced the occult.) You have to BELIEVE both sides of the coin in order to get started with this theory.
On this kind of two-sided belief are also based all sorts of third-rate hokey, and madness itself.
Make your choice.
Saddam
|
Chuck
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 9:12 pm: | |
Saddam,
At the post-mortem examination, it's stated:
"There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half. On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium under the left ear."
These two flaps (^^) are occult symbols.
Jennifer, unfortunately I cannot answer your question. I am getting the occult info from "Jack the Ripper's Black Magic Rituals" by Ivor Edwards and he so far hasn't touched more on that specific symbol, but I searched google and typed in "occult symbols" and I saw a few symbols similar to that of the flaps, but not exactly. Chances are Ivor was referring to that specific symbol or others that look similar.
It would also be good to note the fact that Dr. Brown also stated:
"The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter. A piece of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design."
I believe that the theory of these killings being occult in nature is highly underrated.
Unfortunately, writers have made up a lot of lies about it and caused people to believe less in it now that they know tons of stories were fake, but, seriously, Ivor Edwards puts those lies aside and does come up with accurate info that I think people should check out.
-Chuck-
|
Chuck
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 2:49 am: | |
Bob,
You say:
"If a murderer wanted to place victims to a set pattern there is a much simpler way. Take five victims, kill them, load them into a cart and take them to a deserted field and lay the bodies out according to any pattern you want."
There is a problem with this statement.
That was not the killer’s intention. I think it is clear that Jack the Ripper wanted people to SEE and FIND his victims. Why would he murder almost all of his victims outside where they could easily be FOUND within minutes? He could have easily taken Catherine Eddowes and murdered her in one of the empty houses and left her their. Her body may have not been found for a couple of days. He clearly wanted everybody to see the body, oherwise he would not take the risk of easily being caught for all his murders.
That's even greater support to show that these victums were killed at prearranged sites.
Polly Nichols was led into her death site at probably around 3:30 a.m. Which is between the stable beat times which are 3:15 and 3:45 a.m. Mrs. Harriet Lilley, in an unconfirmed report stated that she heard whispering in Bucks Row and gasps and moans a little before the 3:30 train. Then, she said the train came by and couldn't here any of the previous sounds. The train blocked them out.
This only helps me believe that the killer knew exactly where to go on all the murders, what the police beat times would be, and studied further variables.
All this does not sound like it's by "luck" or by "chance." That was the direction which you seemed to be going.
I quote this from Ivor Edwards' book:
"One avenue which was never explored by the police of the day, mainly due to their ignorance of it, was occult ritual murder, including the doctrine that certain organs should be removed from murdered harlots, killed at pre-arranged sites, which were to be located at the four points of the compass. Certain organs could be made into holy candles for use in an occult ritual, while other organs could be made into potions for use in the occult." (Pg.83-Jack the Ripper's Black Magic Rituals)
In case anybody was wandering, a harlot is another word for a prostitute.
Regarding Stride, there is evidence to help support she WAS a Jack the Ripper victim. Stride was laid down as the other victims.
Stride was suffocated like other victims
Stride's throat was cut from left to right after she was put down on her side
she was a prostitute
Killed after 12:30 a.m. and before 6:00 a.m.
Close to a wall was where the body was placed
It seems as if you and many others are only disregarding this theory because you think it was only by luck that these things took place. If that is said, then I guess everything else should be regarded by chance, shouldn't it?
-Chuck-
Sources:
"Jack the Ripper's Black Magic Rituals"
by Ivor Edwards
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 6:33 pm: | |
The odd flaps cut on Eddowes' cheeks may or may not be occult symbols, but I can't readily see the difference between insisting they are occult symbols, and, for instance, making an even more remarkable suggestion that two solitary slashes across a cylindrical human neck represent a 'circumcision,' largely (I think) on the strength that one well-known suspect is a Jew. Perhaps one is a 'con game,' and the other is a flash of brilliance, but, in my myopia, I'm unable to discern which is which. I would hope that while one theory is delivered in a Keatonian dead-pan seriousness, the other is only meant in irony.
As for those marks. I would agree with Saddam that it would not be accurate to call them 'ritualistic.' A ritual is a rite, an observance of some recognizable tradition. Are any of the Ripper's actions ritualistic? To me, they seem personal and idiosyncratic. What G.B. Shaw described as (with irony) the acts of an 'independent genius.' (Or repulsive lunatic, take your pick). The murderer's actions are deliberate, but highly private.
Unfortunately---and in contrast to the alleged pattern of the crime scenes---the "^ ^" marks on Eddowes can't be swept under the rug quite so easily. They were a deliberate act. The sweep of the knife in removing the kidney or uterus might have been haphazard (though I don't believe they were), but these marks cannot be.
The police received a postcard on Nov 12th. [Reproduced on p. 22 of Letters from Hell]. In an unobtrusive manner, and without remark, the correspondent 'M. Baynard' writes in the lower left corner: "^ ^", as if to say "I am legitimate."
It's difficult to know what to make of this postcard. We know with some certainty that even lower police officials only had a cloudy idea about the precise nature of some of the mutilations. Andrews believed (at least in December) that only one woman was badly mutilated. Now, one way out is that several women were paraded through the mortuary to view Eddowes' body. It is possible that these marks were noticed, and that they became part of discussion in the streets; but if this was the case, one would think that the marks would have been mentioned by a journalist. As far as I know, they weren't public knowledge until the drawings of Eddowes were rediscovered in a pipe in London Hospital, and Martin Fido described them in his book in 1987. It's curious. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:01 am: | |
Hi RJ,
When I brought this up on the old boards, I was told that the two inverted vs on the postcard were most likely punctuation marks, to indicate a couple of words (in this case "from Liverpool" )which had been inserted later, and that therefore any connection with the marks on Eddowes's face was probably coincidental.
May I suggest to D'Onston fanciers that any connection between the marks on Eddowes and occult symbols could be equally coincidental, but as I like to keep all my balls in the air, I won't be insisting this is the case.
Incidentally, RJ, I can see an enormous difference between insisting something is true and making a suggestion about what may be possible. I'm surprised you can't. 
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 12:38 am: | |
Caz--Thanks. As for the postcard, I guess I'm not entirely convinced of the explanation. I'll have to look into it further.
As for your last paragraph..no, I don't see an enormous difference, or even a small one.
It wasn't too long ago you rather energetically defended Cornwell against a charge of being dishonest. On another board, you're ruminating over the difference between a fake and a fraud.
Now, let's see. There's a mangle woman. One person sees the work of a sexually frustrated painter with a fistula, another suggests a Jewish 'circumcision', and a third sees occult rituals. Why is it kosher to suggest that the latter bloke is engaged in a 'con game', while the other two are merely theorists? The claim seems a bit extreme to me. Or is it that someone here has a specific con man in mind? Cheers. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 4:00 am: | |
Hi RJ,
Well it does seem like your questions at the end are directed at someone other than me. I was simply picking up on two words in your post - 'insisting' and 'suggestion' - which you find interchangeable. When it comes to debating unsolved, and probably unsolvable mysteries, I find these two utterly different. Making suggestions is all anyone can do, whereas insisting on something theoretical is, in my book, a  , whoever is doing it, and whatever the theory.
Regarding Cornwell - along with everyone else who has ever published a claim about the identity of the ripper - I also see a big difference between knowingly deceiving the public and a personal conviction that may have led to self-delusion. [I'd better make it clear that self-delusion doesn't make a claim any less of a no-no, if it's unsupported. The difference here is purely the honesty issue.] The difficulty is telling one from the other with 100% certainty. The temptation is always to think that someone with a view of things that is radically different from our own must either be lying or mad, or both.
And you must know perfectly well why I 'ruminate' (yesterday I was a pig, today I'm a cow - you guys are way too kind  ) over the difference between suggesting the diary is a fake and insisting that fraud has been committed, when no one has come up with the information that allows for such a distinction to be made.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 115
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 12:01 pm: | |
Caz,
I said sorry already...you know I think you're an 
You say prove its a fake.....we say prove its genuine.
As yet we both cannot.
But in the meantime..the sun is out and Im feeling gay (as Im sure you and RJ are!)
Come on over to my place, we'll have a barbi and a few cans by the side of my pool.
Bring your bikini...you can bring yours too Caz.
Lets just laze the day away cos the diary, Ros, all your quibbles and we happy few will still be here tomorrow,
Enjoy,
Monty
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 1:52 pm: | |
"...but as I like to keep all my balls in the air, I won't be insisting this is the case."
Yes, indeed. And the bigger our balls, the more air required.
Saddam
|
Deb Glovak
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 14, 2003 - 12:50 am: | |
Hi everyone,
This is my first post, and I must say, I am quite amazed at the high-end discussions I am seeing in this chat room.
I have only recently gotten deeply into the ripper murders, never before really trying to put the pieces together. However, I am going to try to keep up with all of you, and hopefully be able to contribute to your group in some way.
I have a Master's degree in criminal justice, so I know a bit about that end. Also, my thesis is pending approval, trying to do it on a suspects versus MO's involved in Ripper killings. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 10:21 pm: | |
"The odd flaps cut on Eddowes' cheeks may or may not be occult symbols, but I can't readily see the difference between insisting they are occult symbols, and, for instance, making an even more remarkable suggestion that two solitary slashes across a cylindrical human neck represent a 'circumcision,' largely (I think) on the strength that one well-known suspect is a Jew."
Oooo Mr. Palmer, you're teasing your Uncle Dave Radka! "Two solitary slashes across a cylindrical human neck", is it? Well, I believe I had made myself more clear. The murderer made full-scale ORBITAL incisions, apparently in part as preludes to attempts at beheading, and he did so repeatedly. That means ALL AROUND the neck, meine freund. And for a logical, confirming opposition, he also removed breasts with circular, circumcising incisions.
Satisfaction is the key to good Ripperology. Knowing what would satisfy is a key to asking the right questions.
And may I also ask, is Chuck a philodendron? You know, a plant? The kind of chap who phones a talk show host when he's interviewing a guest who has something to sell, and then gushes over the product on the air.
Saddam
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 8:29 am: | |
Hi Monty,
I couldn't find the apology after your 'pigs' remark, but the more than makes up for that. Thanks me dear.
But I really don't know why people, you included, misunderstand me whenever I talk dirty - oops, I mean diary. (Or is it the same thing?) You wrote:
You say prove its a fake.....we say prove its genuine.
No I don't - I say prove it's a modern fake by showing who wrote it and when. And as I'm not trying to argue that it's genuine, or even that it could be genuine, why should anyone be asking me to prove any such thing?
Love,
Confused Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 10:46 am: | |
To my dear Uncle, D. R.---Two or three years ago, someone posted an account of the melancholy death of Mr. Edward Buchan. At the time, I challenged whether or not it would be physically possible for the young Buchan to have 'nearly beheaded himself,' (as the reports went) thinking that this might be a bit of an exaggeration. However, Stewart Evans, having been present at more than a few suicide scenes, acknowledged that it was, in fact, entirely possible, granting that the bloke in question was serious enough about his intentions, and had a sharp knife.
With all due apologies for my earlier ambiguity....let me rephrase the comment.
Aren't what you are calling 'orbital incisions' in fact, (my view) 'two slashes across a cylindrical neck'?
For instance, the main cut to the throat of Nichols is eight inches long. Sugden writes, it "encircled the neck." (p. 41) And Dr. Phillips used a similar phrase to describe the injuries to Annie Chapman.
But wait. Even a 'pencil-necked' geek like me wears a fifteen inch collar. An eight inch slash from ear to ear is a very deep, violent cut, but I don't think I'd chose to call it 'orbital.'
Dr. Brown describes the injury to Eddowes---"The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and 1/2 below the lobe and about 2 1/2 inches below behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear."
I see a deep cut, but circular only to the extent that the neck is cylindrical.
Now, on another matter. I suppose it probably doesn't need to be said, but the idea behind a circumcision is to remove the end of the sheath, not to lop off the glans.
I grant you that all of this is subjective. Any symbolism would be in the eye of the murderer. But then, that's my point. I certainly don't see where an occult theory is inherently on looser soil than a theory involving a Mad Mohel.
Personally, if I was going to theorize about the crime scenes, I think I would tend to focus on the elements that we know aren't haphazard or merely a function of the murder. A missing uterus, for instance.
Respectfully submitted, RP.
|
Chuck
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 6:58 pm: | |
The probability that these symbol(s) would appear like that on a map is VERY slim, and is a far cry from getting their by chance.
Why would Jack the Ripper remove some of the organs? He had to have had a purpose for them. Occultists needed them for certain practices.
-Chuck-
|
Candy Morgan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
Hello!
Having a small amount of interest in the occult, I'd apperciate it if anyone could tell me just what tradition or style the two triangular marks are considered to be a sign in?
D'Onston was associated with Crowley, then of the Golden Dawn and later of the OTO, but I don't believe that partial triangles were or are considered an occult symbol in either group.
Modern-day daemonologists use a triangle as the retort or reciever into which the essence is summoned, but that is a full triangle, not a partial and is not considered a holy symbol so much as it is a protective device.
Two triangles crossed over one another forms the seal of Solomon, or star of David as it is more widely know, but I do not think that is what is implied either with two equal triangles both pointed upwards on either cheek of the poor woman.
I eagerly await the information as to what group's occult symbol this is.
Thank you very much in advance!
~~Candy |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 1:01 pm: | |
"The probability that these symbol(s) would appear like that on a map is VERY slim, and is a far cry from getting their (sic) by chance. Why would Jack the Ripper remove some of the organs? He had to have had a purpose for them. Occultists needed them for certain practices.
-Chuck-"
Chuck is a philodendron, a Venus fly trap, a potted plant, a nonentity, a set up. There is no real Chuck. The positions "he" advocates above are not evidentiary. No certain symbols appear on any map--one finds whatever one looks for in chaotic cloud patterns. The putative "purpose" the murderer may have had for the organs could have been thousands of different things; as likely as to make "magick" candle wax out of them, he could have been planning to feed them to his cat. "Chuck" provides no edification.
Saddam
|
albie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 21, 2003 - 6:39 am: | |
The pattern of killings seems to be mostly a zig zag fashion, working from east to south west. This just implies a kind of simple evasive tecnique rather than an occult meaning. Maybe the killer plotted his progress on a map, and decided his next killing due to this method of zig zagging. |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 116
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 7:44 am: | |
Caz,
Sorry for my reply delay...trouble with Millie Poppy !!
My point is that the diary cannot be prove either way...modern or not. And I wasnt hinting that you undertake such a task. Cos, as you say, as yet it cannot be done.
I was just suggesting that we all calm down and have a pint....after all, time WILL reveal all.
Monty
 |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 26
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 9:44 am: | |
I'm having a protracted discussion about Donston on the alternative boards Donstonian Ivor Edwards has set up since being banned from these (and whereon he is behaving himself most circumspectly!)
All the best,
Martin F |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 1:58 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
Lots of hugs and kisses to Millie Poppy. (I just adore that name!) 
Love,
Caz |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 122
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
Hi Caz,
Many thanks (on Millies behalf).
She has just been diagnosed as Type 1 Diabetic. Obviously we had no idea until she was extremely ill couple of weekends ago.
She ok now, first day back at school yesterday and A OK, so far...touch wood (Where is Peter by the way ? I must mail him).
Its just a hell of a lot to take in. Its nice to escape here.
Thanks again,
Monty
 |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
